Classification of Herbicides According to Chemical Family For

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Classification of Herbicides According to Chemical Family For DOI: 10.1111/wre.12153 Classification of herbicides according to chemical family for weed resistance management strategies – an update A FOROUZESH*,EZAND*,SSOUFIZADEH† & S SAMADI FOROUSHANI* *Iranian Research Institute of Plant Protection, Agricultural Research Education and Extension Organization (AREEO), Tehran, Iran, and †Department of Agroecology, Environmental Sciences Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University, G.C., P.O. Box 19835-196, Tehran, Iran Received 24 January 2014 Revised version accepted 26 January 2015 Subject Editor: Enrique Barriuso, INRA, France mechanisms of action. According to this study, these Summary moieties have been assigned to the names of chemical There are inaccuracies in the chemical families of the families and active ingredients are then classified WSSA and HRAC herbicide classification systems within the chemical families accordingly. This study which could limit their practical use in herbicide-based has 119 chemical families, compared with 145 in the weed management strategies. In essence, these inaccu- WSSA system and 58 in the HRAC system. A major racies could be divided into four parts: (i) the nomen- priority of this study is the number of active ingredi- clature of many of the chemical families is not correct, ents covered; we included 410 active ingredients with (ii) distinct active ingredients are grouped in same known mechanisms of action and herbicide groups, chemical families, (iii) many chemical families have more than 100 active ingredients more than the current been repeated in at least two modes of action/herbicide classification systems. Overall, this study provides bet- groups, and (iv) many active ingredients have not been ter opportunities for the management of resistance to assigned to chemical family, herbicide group or mode herbicides through the application of improved pure of action. The aim of this study was to revise the cur- and applied knowledge. rent classifications and to propose corrections for the Keywords: herbicide resistance, cross-resistance, chemi- current ones. Detailed investigations on chemical cal structure, active ingredient, mode of action, Herbi- structure of the active ingredients of the registered her- cide Resistance Action Committee. bicides showed that some moieties have the same FOROUZESH A, ZAND E, SOUFIZADEH S&SAMADI FOROUSHANI S (2015). Classification of herbicides according to chemical family for weed resistance management strategies – an update. Weed Research 55, 334–358. numerous studies about the advantages of rotational Introduction application of herbicide groups in delaying the evolu- Weed resistance to herbicides has become a major con- tion of herbicide-resistant weeds (Stephenson et al., cern in crop production worldwide that necessitates 1990; Gill, 1995; Itoh et al., 1999; Singh et al., 1999; special attention. Resistance to herbicides is often Hartmann et al., 2000; Legere et al., 2000; Hashem attributed to lack of rotational programmes of herbi- et al., 2001; Schmidt et al., 2004). Thus, a true under- cides and to continuous applications of herbicides with standing of the sites of action of herbicides is essential the same sites of action (Beckie et al., 2006). There are for strategic planning of herbicide-based weed control. Correspondence: Saeid Soufizadeh, Department of Agroecology, Environmental Sciences Research Institute, Shahid Beheshti University, G.C., P.O. Box 19835-196, Tehran, Iran. Tel: (+98) 21 2990 2867; Fax: (+98) 21 2990 2867; E-mail: s_soufi[email protected] © 2015 European Weed Research Society 55, 334–358 Herbicide classification 335 An effective way to design a good rotational herbi- As a result, the names of some chemical families (as it cide programme would be to use classification systems stems from the active ingredients) are partially or thor- of these chemicals. Currently, there are two systems of oughly revised. Addition of more than 100 active classification for herbicides: one that belongs to the ingredients may also be an important step towards WSSA (2007) and the other that has been developed decreasing the occurrence of herbicide resistance. by the HRAC (2010). The former classification system uses numbers, whilst the latter uses letters for classify- Chemical basis of this study ing herbicides. Generally, the WSSA system includes 200 active ingredients and 145 chemical families and The basis of the new classification system relies on the the HRAC system covers 291 active ingredients fact that it is the active ingredient that determines its grouped in 58 chemical families. However, these two respective chemical family and ultimately the mecha- systems both have problems with the designation of nism of action it demonstrates (or it should be grouped chemical families that have negative implications for in). However, less familiarity with rules that govern chemical management of weeds. In a broad sense, we the nomenclature of organic compounds is the main divide these difficulties into two aspects. From a chem- cause of mistakes that exist in the HRAC and WSSA istry point of view, (i) there are many active ingredi- classifications. Some examples will be given to clarify ents with unknown chemical family, (ii) there are some this. Chemical family aryloxyphenoxypropionate mistakes in the nomenclature of chemical families, and (WSSA group 1 and HRAC group A) exist in both (iii) some active ingredients have been grouped in a classifications. This chemical family includes some chemical family when they are distinct. In the latter aromatic active ingredients, for example clodinafop, fe- case, such an issue may result in incorrect decision- noxaprop, fluazifop, haloxyfop, propaquizafop and making over the selection of herbicides to be used in a quizalofop. However, the correct name should be hy- rotational programme. As an example, if two distinct droxyphenoxyisopropionic acid. The justification is active ingredients are grouped in the same chemical that according to IUPAC (1979), the term ‘aryl’ refers family, it may be incorrectly inferred that as these two to a univalent aromatic hydrocarbon that only con- active ingredients are members of a same chemical tains carbon and hydrogen atoms. However, in the family, they will show the same cross-resistances. From current classification systems, the term ‘aryl’ has been a weed management point of view, there are 100 active used for aromatic compounds that also contain other ingredients that have not been assigned to any mecha- chemical elements other than carbon and hydrogen, nism of action, chemical family and herbicide group in such as nitrogen; using the term ‘aryl’ for a heterocy- both classification systems. This poses difficulties in clic aromatic compound is not correct. Also, according weed management programmes and could potentially to the WSSA and HRAC systems, the chemical family accelerate the occurrence of resistance. of the active ingredients clethodim and tralkoxydim Considering the shortcomings stated above, this from acetyl CoA carboxylase (ACCase) inhibitors is study aimed at revising the current classification sys- cyclohexanedione. Cyclohexane consists of a six-mem- tems, with the ultimate goals of correcting the record bered ring with six carbon atoms that are connected to and in supporting better planning of weed manage- each other with six single bonds, whilst such a chemi- ment strategies regarding rotational applications of cal structure belongs to cyclohexene. The difference herbicides. The objectives of this study can be summar- between cyclohexene and cyclohexane relates to the ised as follows: (i) corrections to be made in the replacement of a single bond by a double bond in the nomenclature of chemical families based on the rules ring of the latter. The suffix ‘-dione’ in cyclohexanedi- that govern organic chemistry, (ii) distinct active ingre- one indicates the replacement of two >CH2 groups by dients that have been grouped in one chemical family >CO in the ring, whilst in the active ingredients of this to be shifted to appropriate families, (iii) active ingre- chemical family, one >CH2 group is replaced by >CO dients with unknown chemical family and many active in the ring. Thus, the nomenclature of this chemical ingredients repeated with at least two mechanisms of family should be hydroxyoxocyclohexenecarbaldehyde action/herbicide groups to be assigned to appropriate oxime. As another example, 32 active ingredients chemical family and (iv) over 100 active ingredients within the photosystem II inhibitors have the moiety with known mechanisms of action, herbicide groups (moiety is a part of a molecule that may include either and chemical families to be added to both classification whole functional groups or parts of functional groups systems. The authors note that a mechanism of action as substructures; a functional group has similar chemi- directly depends on its active ingredient; thus, the cal properties whenever it occurs in different com- mechanism of action of most active ingredients can be pounds) triazinediamine and thus their chemical family identified merely on the basis of the chemical structure. in this study is named triazinediamine. Within the © 2015 European Weed Research Society 55, 334–358 336 A Forouzesh et al. Table 1 The numbers of mechanisms of action, herbicide groups, chemical families and active ingredients in each classification system Classification systems Mechanisms of action HRAC groups WSSA groups Chemical families Active ingredients This study 16 23 28 119 430 HRAC (2010) 16 23 26 58 291 WSSA (2007) 16 22 28
Recommended publications
  • 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic Acid
    2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid IUPAC (2,4-dichlorophenoxy)acetic acid name 2,4-D Other hedonal names trinoxol Identifiers CAS [94-75-7] number SMILES OC(COC1=CC=C(Cl)C=C1Cl)=O ChemSpider 1441 ID Properties Molecular C H Cl O formula 8 6 2 3 Molar mass 221.04 g mol−1 Appearance white to yellow powder Melting point 140.5 °C (413.5 K) Boiling 160 °C (0.4 mm Hg) point Solubility in 900 mg/L (25 °C) water Related compounds Related 2,4,5-T, Dichlorprop compounds Except where noted otherwise, data are given for materials in their standard state (at 25 °C, 100 kPa) 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) is a common systemic herbicide used in the control of broadleaf weeds. It is the most widely used herbicide in the world, and the third most commonly used in North America.[1] 2,4-D is also an important synthetic auxin, often used in laboratories for plant research and as a supplement in plant cell culture media such as MS medium. History 2,4-D was developed during World War II by a British team at Rothamsted Experimental Station, under the leadership of Judah Hirsch Quastel, aiming to increase crop yields for a nation at war.[citation needed] When it was commercially released in 1946, it became the first successful selective herbicide and allowed for greatly enhanced weed control in wheat, maize (corn), rice, and similar cereal grass crop, because it only kills dicots, leaving behind monocots. Mechanism of herbicide action 2,4-D is a synthetic auxin, which is a class of plant growth regulators.
    [Show full text]
  • Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the WSSA
    Weed Science 2010 58:511–518 Common and Chemical Names of Herbicides Approved by the Weed Science Society of America Below is the complete list of all common and chemical of herbicides as approved by the International Organization names of herbicides approved by the Weed Science Society of for Standardization (ISO). A sponsor may submit a proposal America (WSSA) and updated as of September 1, 2010. for a common name directly to the WSSA Terminology Beginning in 1996, it has been published yearly in the last Committee. issue of Weed Science with Directions for Contributors to A herbicide common name is not synonymous with Weed Science. This list is published in lieu of the selections a commercial formulation of the same herbicide, and in printed previously on the back cover of Weed Science. Only many instances, is not synonymous with the active ingredient common and chemical names included in this complete of a commercial formulation as identified on the product list should be used in WSSA publications. In the absence of label. If the herbicide is a salt or simple ester of a parent a WSSA-approved common name, the industry code number compound, the WSSA common name applies to the parent as compiled by the Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) with compound only. CAS systematic chemical name or the systematic chemical The chemical name used in this list is that preferred by the name alone may be used. The current approved list is also Chemical Abstracts Service (CAS) according to their system of available at our web site (www.wssa.net).
    [Show full text]
  • WO 2012/125779 Al 20 September 2012 (20.09.2012) P O P C T
    (12) INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION PUBLISHED UNDER THE PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT) (19) World Intellectual Property Organization International Bureau (10) International Publication Number (43) International Publication Date WO 2012/125779 Al 20 September 2012 (20.09.2012) P O P C T (51) International Patent Classification: CA, CH, CL, CN, CO, CR, CU, CZ, DE, DK, DM, DO, A01N 43/90 (2006.01) DZ, EC, EE, EG, ES, FI, GB, GD, GE, GH, GM, GT, HN, HR, HU, ID, IL, IN, IS, JP, KE, KG, KM, KN, KP, KR, (21) International Application Number: KZ, LA, LC, LK, LR, LS, LT, LU, LY, MA, MD, ME, PCT/US20 12/029 153 MG, MK, MN, MW, MX, MY, MZ, NA, NG, NI, NO, NZ, (22) International Filing Date: OM, PE, PG, PH, PL, PT, QA, RO, RS, RU, RW, SC, SD, 15 March 2012 (15.03.2012) SE, SG, SK, SL, SM, ST, SV, SY, TH, TJ, TM, TN, TR, TT, TZ, UA, UG, US, UZ, VC, VN, ZA, ZM, ZW. (25) Filing Language: English (84) Designated States (unless otherwise indicated, for every (26) Publication Language: English kind of regional protection available): ARIPO (BW, GH, (30) Priority Data: GM, KE, LR, LS, MW, MZ, NA, RW, SD, SL, SZ, TZ, 61/453,202 16 March 201 1 (16.03.201 1) US UG, ZM, ZW), Eurasian (AM, AZ, BY, KG, KZ, MD, RU, TJ, TM), European (AL, AT, BE, BG, CH, CY, CZ, DE, (71) Applicant (for all designated States except US) : DOW DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, GB, GR, HR, HU, IE, IS, IT, LT, LU, AGROSCIENCES LLC [US/US]; 9330 Zionsville Road, LV, MC, MK, MT, NL, NO, PL, PT, RO, RS, SE, SI, SK, Indianapolis, IN 46268 (US).
    [Show full text]
  • Solventless Formulation of Triclopyr Butoxyethyl
    (19) & (11) EP 1 983 829 B1 (12) EUROPEAN PATENT SPECIFICATION (45) Date of publication and mention (51) Int Cl.: of the grant of the patent: A01N 43/40 (2006.01) A01N 25/30 (2006.01) 13.01.2010 Bulletin 2010/02 A01N 25/04 (2006.01) A01P 13/00 (2006.01) (21) Application number: 06837962.7 (86) International application number: PCT/US2006/044751 (22) Date of filing: 17.11.2006 (87) International publication number: WO 2007/094836 (23.08.2007 Gazette 2007/34) (54) SOLVENTLESS FORMULATION OF TRICLOPYR BUTOXYETHYL ESTER LÖSUNGSMITTELFREIE FORMULIERUNG VON TRICLOPYR-BUTOXYETHYLESTER FORMULE SANS SOLVANT D’ESTER DE BUTOXYETHYLE DU TRICYCLOPYR (84) Designated Contracting States: • POMPEO, Michael, P. DE ES FR GB IT Sumter, SC 29150 (US) (30) Priority: 15.02.2006 US 773417 P (74) Representative: Weiss, Wolfgang Weickmann & Weickmann (43) Date of publication of application: Patentanwälte 29.10.2008 Bulletin 2008/44 Postfach 86 08 20 81635 München (DE) (73) Proprietors: • Dow AgroSciences LLC (56) References cited: Indianapolis, WO-A-96/28027 WO-A-2004/093546 Indiana 46268-1054 (US) US-A1- 5 466 659 • Jensen, Jeffrey, Lee Brownsburg IN 46112 (US) • BOVEY RODNEY W ET AL: "Honey mesquite (Prosopis glandulosa) control by synergistic (72) Inventors: action of clopyralid: Triclopyr mixtures" WEED • JENSEN, Jeffrey, Lee SCIENCE, vol. 40, no. 4, 1992, pages 563-567, Brownsburg, IN 46112 (US) XP009080681 ISSN: 0043-1745 • KLINE, William, N., III • BEBAWI F F ET AL: "Impact of foliar herbicides Duluth, GA 30096 (US) on pod and seed behaviour of rust-infected • BURCH, Patrick, L. rubber vine (Cryptostegia grandiflora) plants" Christiansburg, VA 24073 (US) PLANT PROTECTION QUARTERLY, vol.
    [Show full text]
  • INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES
    US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs INDEX to PESTICIDE TYPES and FAMILIES and PART 180 TOLERANCE INFORMATION of PESTICIDE CHEMICALS in FOOD and FEED COMMODITIES Note: Pesticide tolerance information is updated in the Code of Federal Regulations on a weekly basis. EPA plans to update these indexes biannually. These indexes are current as of the date indicated in the pdf file. For the latest information on pesticide tolerances, please check the electronic Code of Federal Regulations (eCFR) at http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/40cfrv23_07.html 1 40 CFR Type Family Common name CAS Number PC code 180.163 Acaricide bridged diphenyl Dicofol (1,1-Bis(chlorophenyl)-2,2,2-trichloroethanol) 115-32-2 10501 180.198 Acaricide phosphonate Trichlorfon 52-68-6 57901 180.259 Acaricide sulfite ester Propargite 2312-35-8 97601 180.446 Acaricide tetrazine Clofentezine 74115-24-5 125501 180.448 Acaricide thiazolidine Hexythiazox 78587-05-0 128849 180.517 Acaricide phenylpyrazole Fipronil 120068-37-3 129121 180.566 Acaricide pyrazole Fenpyroximate 134098-61-6 129131 180.572 Acaricide carbazate Bifenazate 149877-41-8 586 180.593 Acaricide unclassified Etoxazole 153233-91-1 107091 180.599 Acaricide unclassified Acequinocyl 57960-19-7 6329 180.341 Acaricide, fungicide dinitrophenol Dinocap (2, 4-Dinitro-6-octylphenyl crotonate and 2,6-dinitro-4- 39300-45-3 36001 octylphenyl crotonate} 180.111 Acaricide, insecticide organophosphorus Malathion 121-75-5 57701 180.182 Acaricide, insecticide cyclodiene Endosulfan 115-29-7 79401
    [Show full text]
  • Management of Herbicide-Resistant Weed Populations 100 Questions on Resistance
    Management of Herbicide-Resistant Weed Populations 100 questions on resistance Prepared by: Andreu Taberner Palou Servicio de Sanidad Vegetal, Unidad de Malherbologia DAR Generalitat de Cataluña Rovira Roure 191. 25198 Lleida Spain [email protected] Alicia Cirujeda Ranzenberger and Carlos Zaragoza Larios Centro de Investigación y Tecnología Agroalimentaria Gobierno de Aragón Apdo. 727. 50080 Zaragoza Spain [email protected] FOOD AND AGRICULTURE ORGANIZATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS Rome, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................ VII PREFACE ..................................................................................................................... IX 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1 1.1 Interests and Objectives ............................................................................1 1.2 To whom is this publication useful?..........................................................4 1.3 Importance of herbicide resistance ...........................................................5 1.4 What is a resistant weed?..........................................................................6 1.5 Main species affected by problems of resistance.......................................7 1.6 Main herbicides causing problems of resistance ......................................9 1.7 Economic aspects of resistance...............................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • Literature Review of Controlling Aquatic Invasive Vegetation With
    Eurasian watermilfoil in Christmas Lake, 2011 Literature Review on Controlling Aquatic Invasive Vegetation with Aquatic Herbicides Compared to Other Control Methods: Effectiveness, Impacts, and Costs Prepared for: Prepared by: Minnehaha Creek Watershed District Steve McComas Blue Water Science St. Paul, MN 55116 September 2011 1 Literature Review on Controlling Aquatic Invasive Vegetation with Aquatic Herbicides Compared to Other Control Methods: Effectiveness, Impacts, and Costs Steve McComas, Blue Water Science Table of Contents page number Introduction .................................................................................................................................................................. 1 Use of Herbicides as an Aquatic Plant Control Technique ...................................................................................... 2 How Herbicides Work and Their Mode of Action ....................................................................................................... 3 Aquatic Herbicide Impacts on Humans and the Ecosystem ....................................................................................... 8 Where to Find Sources of Specific Information on herbicide Products and Their Active Ingredients ....................... 16 Harvesting, Drawdown, and Biocontrol as Aquatic Plant Control Techniques ................................................... 17 Summary of Control Techniques for Non-Native Curlyleaf Pondweed and Eurasian Watermilfoil ................... 25 Control Techniques for Other
    [Show full text]
  • ILRP Pesticides Evaluation Protocol 1 Central Valley Water Board Irrigated Land Regulatory Program Prioritizing and Selecting Pe
    ILRP Pesticides Evaluation Protocol 1 Central Valley Water Board Irrigated Land Regulatory Program Prioritizing and Selecting Pesticides for Surface Water Monitoring The following protocol has been developed for evaluating pesticides that are used on irrigated agricultural lands and to identify those that warrant surface water monitoring under the Irrigated Lands Regulatory Program (ILRP). The protocol includes step-by-step instructions and attachments (i.e., list of pesticides with reference values, list of degradates, and groups). Introduction and Background The Central Valley Water Board adopted a series of Waste Discharge Requirements for irrigated lands, which include Monitoring and Reporting Program (MRP) requirements for the third-party groups (i.e. Coalitions). Under the MRP Orders, pesticides to be monitored are to be identified by the third- party using the list of pesticides (Executive Officer (EO) List) and a set of evaluation factors and an evaluation process provided by the Central Valley Water Board Executive Officer. Furthermore, the MRP Orders state “The pesticides marked as to be determined […] shall be identified as part of a process that includes input from qualified scientists and coordination with the Department of Pesticide Regulation.” Central Valley Water Board staff convened a Pesticide Evaluation Advisory Workgroup (Workgroup) to provide input on the process for evaluating and identifying pesticides that may require monitoring. The Workgroup consisted of thirteen qualified scientists1 selected by the Executive Officer through a nomination and selection process. Six meetings of the Workgroup were held in 2014 and early 2015. All Workgroup agendas, meeting materials and summary notes are available online: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralvalley/water_issues/irrigated_lands/regulatory_information/stakehold er_advisory_workgroup/index.shtml The pesticide evaluation protocol is based largely on the Workgroup discussions and materials developed by the Workgroup during and outside of the formal meetings.
    [Show full text]
  • Chemical Weed Control
    2014 North Carolina Agricultural Chemicals Manual The 2014 North Carolina Agricultural Chemicals Manual is published by the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service, College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, N.C. State University, Raleigh, N.C. These recommendations apply only to North Carolina. They may not be appropriate for conditions in other states and may not comply with laws and regulations outside North Carolina. These recommendations are current as of November 2013. Individuals who use agricultural chemicals are responsible for ensuring that the intended use complies with current regulations and conforms to the product label. Be sure to obtain current information about usage regulations and examine a current product label before applying any chemical. For assistance, contact your county Cooperative Extension agent. The use of brand names and any mention or listing of commercial products or services in this document does not imply endorsement by the North Carolina Cooperative Extension Service nor discrimination against similar products or services not mentioned. VII — CHEMICAL WEED CONTROL 2014 North Carolina Agricultural Chemicals Manual VII — CHEMICAL WEED CONTROL Chemical Weed Control in Field Corn ...................................................................................................... 224 Weed Response to Preemergence Herbicides — Corn ........................................................................... 231 Weed Response to Postemergence Herbicides — Corn ........................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 Theinternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) Was Established in 1980
    The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 cation Hazard of Pesticides by and Guidelines to Classi The WHO Recommended Classi The WHO Recommended Classi cation of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classi cation 2019 The WHO Recommended Classification of Pesticides by Hazard and Guidelines to Classification 2019 TheInternational Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS) was established in 1980. The overall objectives of the IPCS are to establish the scientific basis for assessment of the risk to human health and the environment from exposure to chemicals, through international peer review processes, as a prerequisite for the promotion of chemical safety, and to provide technical assistance in strengthening national capacities for the sound management of chemicals. This publication was developed in the IOMC context. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or stated policies of individual IOMC Participating Organizations. The Inter-Organization Programme for the Sound Management of Chemicals (IOMC) was established in 1995 following recommendations made by the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development to strengthen cooperation and increase international coordination in the field of chemical safety. The Participating Organizations are: FAO, ILO, UNDP, UNEP, UNIDO, UNITAR, WHO, World Bank and OECD. The purpose of the IOMC is to promote coordination of the policies and activities pursued by the Participating Organizations, jointly or separately, to achieve the sound management of chemicals in relation to human health and the environment. WHO recommended classification of pesticides by hazard and guidelines to classification, 2019 edition ISBN 978-92-4-000566-2 (electronic version) ISBN 978-92-4-000567-9 (print version) ISSN 1684-1042 © World Health Organization 2020 Some rights reserved.
    [Show full text]
  • China Releases New Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides In
    GB 2763-2016 THIS REPORT CONTAINS ASSESSMENTS OF COMMODITY AND TRADE ISSUES MADE BY USDA STAFF AND NOT NECESSARILY STATEMENTS OF OFFICIAL U.S. GOVERNMENT POLICY Voluntary - Public Date: 3/31/2017 GAIN Report Number: CH17016 China - Peoples Republic of Post: Beijing China Releases New Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides in Food Report Categories: FAIRS Subject Report Approved By: Lisa Anderson Prepared By: FAS Staff Report Highlights: On December 18, 2016, the Chinese National Health and Family Planning Commission, Ministry of Agriculture, China Food and Drug Administration released the National Food Safety Standard - Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides in Foods (GB 2763-2016). The standard will replace the current MRL Standard (GB 2763-2014) and will be implemented on June 18, 2017. This report provides an unofficial translation of the standard. Editors’ Note: The asterisk appearing in the MRL column means that the limit is a temporary MRL. A temporary MRL is usually set under the following four conditions: 1. The dietary risk assessment data is incomplete; 2. The Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI) is temporary (ADI is used as the basis for MRL setting); 3. There is no surveillance or analysis method for the MRL that complies with the standard requirements; 4. In emergency situations, the pesticide is approved to be used on un-registered crops. I GB 2763-2016 General Information: BEGIN TRANSLATION ICS 65.100 G 25 GB National Standard of the People’s Republic of China GB 2763—2016 Replacing GB 2763 - 2014 National food safety standard Maximum Residue Limits for Pesticides in Food General Information: National Health and Family Planning Commission Issued by: Ministry of Agriculture China Food and Drug Administration Issued on: 2016-12-18 Implementation:2017-06-18 II GB 2763-2016 Table of Content Preface ...............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Method Description
    Methods for Elements Method Method Description Analyte Calcium Copper Iron Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Magnesium EAM 4.4 Spectrometric Determination of Elements in Phosphorus Food Using Microwave Assisted Digestion Potassium Sodium Strontium Zinc Arsenic Cadmium Chromium Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Lead Spectrometric Determination of Arsenic, Manganese EAM 4.7 Cadmium, Chromium, Lead, Mercury and Mercury Other Elements in Food Using Microwave Molybdenum Assisted Digestion Nickel Selenium Uranium Vanadium Antimony Arsenic Barium Beryllium Cadmium Chromium Copper Method for Analysis of Bottled water for 18 Iron EAM 4.12 Elements by ICPMS Lead Manganese Mercury Nickel Selenium Thallium Uranium Zinc High Performance Liquid Chromatography- Inorganic arsenic, Inductively Coupled Plasma-Mass Dimethylarsinic acid (DMA), EAM 4.10 Spectrometric Determination of Four Arsenic Monomethylarsonic acid (MMA), Species in Fruit Juice Arsenobetaine (AsB) KAN-LAB-MET.95 Determination of Iodine in Foods Iodine Methods for Radionuclides Method Method Description Analyte Determination of Strontium-90 in Foods by WEAC.RN.METHOD.2.0 Strontium-90 Internal Gas-Flow Proportional Counting Americium-241 Cesium-134 Cesium-137 Determination of Gamma-Ray Emitting Cobalt-60 WEAC.RN.METHOD.3.0 Radionuclides in Foods by High-Purity Potassium-40 Germanium Spectrometry Radium-226 Ruthenium-103 Ruthenium-106 Thorium-232 Methods for Pesticides/Industrial Chemicals Method Method Description Analyte Extraction Method: Analysis of Pesticides KAN-LAB-PES.53 and
    [Show full text]